| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| A command injection vulnerability exists in mlflow/mlflow versions before v3.7.0, specifically in the `mlflow/sagemaker/__init__.py` file at lines 161-167. The vulnerability arises from the direct interpolation of user-supplied container image names into shell commands without proper sanitization, which are then executed using `os.system()`. This allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands by supplying malicious input through the `--container` parameter of the CLI. The issue affects environments where MLflow is used, including development setups, CI/CD pipelines, and cloud deployments. |
| A command injection vulnerability exists in mlflow/mlflow when serving a model with `enable_mlserver=True`. The `model_uri` is embedded directly into a shell command executed via `bash -c` without proper sanitization. If the `model_uri` contains shell metacharacters, such as `$()` or backticks, it allows for command substitution and execution of attacker-controlled commands. This vulnerability affects the latest version of mlflow/mlflow and can lead to privilege escalation if a higher-privileged service serves models from a directory writable by lower-privileged users. |
| gateway_proxy_handler in MLflow before 3.1.0 lacks gateway_path validation. |
| MLFlow versions up to and including 3.4.0 are vulnerable to DNS rebinding attacks due to a lack of Origin header validation in the MLFlow REST server. This vulnerability allows malicious websites to bypass Same-Origin Policy protections and execute unauthorized calls against REST endpoints. An attacker can query, update, and delete experiments via the affected endpoints, leading to potential data exfiltration, destruction, or manipulation. The issue is resolved in version 3.5.0. |
| In mlflow version 2.20.3, the temporary directory used for creating Python virtual environments is assigned insecure world-writable permissions (0o777). This vulnerability allows an attacker with write access to the `/tmp` directory to exploit a race condition and overwrite `.py` files in the virtual environment, leading to arbitrary code execution. The issue is resolved in version 3.4.0. |
| A vulnerability in MLflow's pyfunc extraction process allows for arbitrary file writes due to improper handling of tar archive entries. Specifically, the use of `tarfile.extractall` without path validation enables crafted tar.gz files containing `..` or absolute paths to escape the intended extraction directory. This issue affects the latest version of MLflow and poses a high/critical risk in scenarios involving multi-tenant environments or ingestion of untrusted artifacts, as it can lead to arbitrary file overwrites and potential remote code execution. |
| MLflow Tracking Server Model Creation Directory Traversal Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of MLflow Tracking Server. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.
The specific flaw exists within the handling of model file paths. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied path prior to using it in file operations. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the service account. Was ZDI-CAN-26921. |
| MLflow Weak Password Requirements Authentication Bypass Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to bypass authentication on affected installations of MLflow. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.
The specific flaw exists within the handling of passwords. The issue results from weak password requirements. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to bypass authentication on the system. Was ZDI-CAN-26916. |
| In mlflow/mlflow version 2.17.2, the `/graphql` endpoint is vulnerable to a denial of service attack. An attacker can create large batches of queries that repeatedly request all runs from a given experiment. This can tie up all the workers allocated by MLFlow, rendering the application unable to respond to other requests. This vulnerability is due to uncontrolled resource consumption. |
| A vulnerability in mlflow/mlflow version 8.2.1 allows for remote code execution due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('Command Injection') within the `mlflow.data.http_dataset_source.py` module. Specifically, when loading a dataset from a source URL with an HTTP scheme, the filename extracted from the `Content-Disposition` header or the URL path is used to generate the final file path without proper sanitization. This flaw enables an attacker to control the file path fully by utilizing path traversal or absolute path techniques, such as '../../tmp/poc.txt' or '/tmp/poc.txt', leading to arbitrary file write. Exploiting this vulnerability could allow a malicious user to execute commands on the vulnerable machine, potentially gaining access to data and model information. The issue is fixed in version 2.9.0. |
| A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the Signup feature of mlflow/mlflow versions 2.17.0 to 2.20.1. This vulnerability allows an attacker to create a new account, which may be used to perform unauthorized actions on behalf of the malicious user. |
| A path traversal vulnerability exists in mlflow/mlflow version 2.15.1. When users configure and use the dbfs service, concatenating the URL directly into the file protocol results in an arbitrary file read vulnerability. This issue occurs because only the path part of the URL is checked, while parts such as query and parameters are not handled. The vulnerability is triggered if the user has configured the dbfs service, and during usage, the service is mounted to a local directory. |
| with only one user interaction(download a malicious config), attackers can gain full command execution on the victim system. |
| In mlflow/mlflow version v2.13.2, a vulnerability exists that allows the creation or renaming of an experiment with a large number of integers in its name due to the lack of a limit on the experiment name. This can cause the MLflow UI panel to become unresponsive, leading to a potential denial of service. Additionally, there is no character limit in the `artifact_location` parameter while creating the experiment. |
| In mlflow/mlflow version 2.18, an admin is able to create a new user account without setting a password. This vulnerability could lead to security risks, as accounts without passwords may be susceptible to unauthorized access. Additionally, this issue violates best practices for secure user account management. The issue is fixed in version 2.19.0. |
| Absolute Path Traversal in GitHub repository mlflow/mlflow prior to 2.2.2. |
| Path Traversal: '\..\filename' in GitHub repository mlflow/mlflow prior to 2.2.1.
|
| A broken access control vulnerability exists in mlflow/mlflow versions before 2.10.1, where low privilege users with only EDIT permissions on an experiment can delete any artifacts. This issue arises due to the lack of proper validation for DELETE requests by users with EDIT permissions, allowing them to perform unauthorized deletions of artifacts. The vulnerability specifically affects the handling of artifact deletions within the application, as demonstrated by the ability of a low privilege user to delete a directory inside an artifact using a DELETE request, despite the official documentation stating that users with EDIT permission can only read and update artifacts, not delete them. |
| mlflow/mlflow is vulnerable to Local File Inclusion (LFI) due to improper parsing of URIs, allowing attackers to bypass checks and read arbitrary files on the system. The issue arises from the 'is_local_uri' function's failure to properly handle URIs with empty or 'file' schemes, leading to the misclassification of URIs as non-local. Attackers can exploit this by crafting malicious model versions with specially crafted 'source' parameters, enabling the reading of sensitive files within at least two directory levels from the server's root. |
| A path traversal vulnerability exists in the mlflow/mlflow repository due to improper handling of URL parameters. By smuggling path traversal sequences using the ';' character in URLs, attackers can manipulate the 'params' portion of the URL to gain unauthorized access to files or directories. This vulnerability allows for arbitrary data smuggling into the 'params' part of the URL, enabling attacks similar to those described in previous reports but utilizing the ';' character for parameter smuggling. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized information disclosure or server compromise. |
